Falana Lauds CJN for Creating Special Courts for Corruption Cases

0

Ejiofor Alike

A constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana, has lauded the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), the Justice Walter Onnoghen, for creating special courts to try corruption cases.

The human rights lawyer said in a statement yesterday that the timely intervention of the Chief Justice would go a long way to speed up the trial of corruption cases in all Nigerian courts.

Falana recalled that as part of anti-corruption policy of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration, an executive bill for the establishment of a special court clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to try corruption cases was submitted to the National Assembly.

He argued that although it was submitted over a year ago, the federal legislators have not deemed it fit to pass the crucial bill into law for reasons best known to them.
Falana stated that corruption cases have been subjected to inordinate delays in our courts, which are congested with many other cases.

“However, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, has intervened in a decisive manner by issuing a directive to all heads of courts in Nigeria to create special courts for the exclusive trial of corruption cases. The CJN deserves commendation for the radical initiative. No doubt, the timely intervention of the Chief Justice will go a long way to speed up the trial of corruption cases in all our courts,” he explained.

To make a success of the directive, Falana suggested that the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the Chief Judges of the states and the Federal Capital Territory FCT should be directed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria to issue Practice Directions to accelerate the determination of corruption cases.

“In addition, the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions 2013; Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions 2013 and Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions 2014 as well as the Federal High Court Practice Directions 2013 issued by the Heads of the respective courts should be put to use as they are designed to give priority to the trial and appeals arising from cases of corruption, money laundering, terrorism, rape and kidnapping and human trafficking,” Falana added.

“To obviate undue delay in the determination of corruption cases the practice directions have made special provision for the service of processes on parties by electronic mail addresses, facsimile number and GSM telephone number or any other available mode of communication,” he said.

Falana noted that even though the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act with respect to the abolition of stay of proceedings in criminal trials in all federal courts, “some defence counsel have devised new dilatory tactics including the practice of subjecting each prosecution witness to cross examination lasting for 20 days or more by asking irrelevant questions and sending junior lawyers to court to ask for adjournment to allow senior counsel in chambers to personally handle the cross examination of prosecution witnesses.”

Falana called on trial courts to stop such delay tactics which are programmed to defeat the letter and spirit of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

“Finally, defence counsel, who conspire with their clients to frustrate the prosecution of corruption cases should be made to pay punitive costs while not more than three lawyers should appear in court for any of the parties in corruption cases,” he added.